I know somewhat of Existentialism, but before I argue it certain parts of it, I want someone here who studys this often, a Expert on Existentialism, to tell me what it’s best defenses are and hopefully we can have a good debate studying it. And just maybe, it won’t come down to what’s true like all the other debates…this one seems to be a cloud of disgust floating around me to the other members…
Main ingredient- Existentialism
So, Ala- Debate!!!
09.14.06.1552
I am perplexed as to what this has to do with religion. Why is it not in the philosophy forum?
You of all people should be telling me what belongs in a religious forum…
My view is conneted with Religion, if I we’re to post it within another forum, I would let my Christian “dogmas” out, and religious opinions don’t seem to matter to a secularist. I’m asking for a defense, this may partly be irrelevant to the nature of this forum, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be discussed since they intercept. I mean, for you to say this doesn’t belong, than niether do atheist, because that as well should be in another forum besides the philosophies of different religions.
09.14.06.1553
Yes… and?
If you bothered to elaborate on that in your first post, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now wouldn’t we?
“Now would we” you mean.
You didn’t pick up on the fact my view is connected with Religion?.. How strange, you posted a complete thread on me, I would think you of all people would know this.
First statement is sarcasm, figured you’d pick up on that as well, but you don’t seem to pick up on alot of things. When Someone makes a satire I could see you saying, “haha you are contradicting yourself when acting like that subject matter”
You of all people should be telling me what’s relevant to post on this forum, this means, you, the king of irrelevant post are trying to tell me what belongs, halarious, that is all.
09.14.06.1556
I should? Wow Club, that’s an honor. Or did you mean “shouldn’t?”
I didn’t know I was a king…
So are you going to post a similar thread in the Philosophy Forum?
If you are Christian then you should know that Existentialism is counter productive to your faith.
Recommended reading; Jean Paul Sarte, Albert Camus, Doestevesky, Heideggar and Nietzsche.
See, Satori? You did it. You misspelled Sartre’s name. That’s because no matter how you spell it, it doesn’t look right. That should tell you something about Existentialism, right there, Club.
I’m not sure I qualify as an expert, but I’ll try to help. I’m also not sure you’re going to be able to pick and choose the participants in this, or any thread, though. It’s main defense is that it doesn’t have all that much to say, so there isn’t much to defend.
Existence precedes essence.
Bang. Done. Sort of.
Existentialism comes in a few flavors. Which one do you want to refute?
Actually, Existentialism, in some of its salient (read: “superficial”) features has a ready intuitive appeal, which is a strong defense for some. Subjective experience is an idea everyone can understand, and that we all think we hold in value in some way. It is also, in a way, antiscientific and “irrational” in that it places itself in opposition to both rationalism and empiricism as commonly understood.
But one man’s fortress is another man’s existential angst.
Wher do you want to go with this? Want some real stupid stuff that’s easy to knock down? Existentialism can oblige. I mean, we can describe the Universe of the Existentialists as either “uncaring” (which is difficult to dispute, without God, at least) or “absurd” which is just the emotionalist way of stating the same thing.
Lol ya it does never look right. Damn frenchies…
Thanks Faust.
I do plan on reading Sartre, Camus, and Kierkegaard. I just thought we could discuss it a bit, but I’m not sure as to what there is to discuss… I could probably just watch “Dead Poets Society” and I’d be alright right?
Astral? So what if it’s counter productive?.. I’m reading Nietzsche right now, should I refrain from this as well? If you are going to put up a good argument, you better know what you are arguing, and this advice works both ways as I’ll say to many of you.
09.15.06.1561
Club… I’m interested in why you’ve taken an interest in Nietzsche and especially Kierkegaard. Are you trying to understand their position against your belief system? I’m serious… what’s your interest in them?
Also, I look forward to seeing how you will tie the topic of this thread to religion… possibly through Nietzsche or a similar philosopher who wrote against religious dogma?
Kierkegaard was a theologian as far as I know, not sure why it’s ‘especially’ odd I’ve taken an interest in him?
Yes I’m trying to understand my position against them, because nothing can hurt the truth. I feel in either position I need to know what I’m talking about. I have high respect for some like Ravi Zacharias who’s practically read every philospher as far as he claims and he discusses their arguments while making logical sense against them. Have you ever read his work? I know its opposition, but as I’ve stated, I don’t think it’s wrong to read all you can about every side.
I’m not sure why it’s a need to tie this thread to religion… But I feel it will come about regardless of whether I want it to or not, beliefs seem to do that.
I used to think this way, but I’ve had mixed results. In one way I know more about different thinkers and pseudo-thinkers. On the other hand, I feel a bit like a spiritual whore, having gone after writings which I know are against what I know and hold to be true. Perhaps this is part of what Aquinas meant by there being a virtue of studiousness, and a vice of curiosity?
Catholics used to have an index of forbidden books, and I’m not sure that’s a bad idea to think of when studying on one’s own or under the direction of a mentor.
Fighting rogue battles of the intellect can leave a soul scarred by the sin of disbelief – especially when fighting alone.
mrn
Kierkegaard is a brilliant writer, who has a lot of interesting things to say about what I will call “religious psychology”. He was, I think, more than Nietzsche, the first to explore existentialist themes as we usually understand them - at least in the modern idiom. Most Christians will almost automatically disagree with what he says. Some may see some validity to his claims as purely psychological avenues to (or from) Christianity, and so see some value, but not as theology per se. Some Christians may see, that is, useful errors in his thinking.
I don’t think, if you read him closely, you’ll find Kierkegaard simply an all-or-nothing proposition. But some familiarity with Nietzsche helps in reading Kierkegaard, within the context of Existentialism.
Besides, if you read him, and then post about him, it gives you valuable practise in spellling his name.
Satre? Sarte? Srartrer?
Has anyone read the book From Shakespeare to Existentialism, by Walter Kaufmann? How is it?
As a soft determinist, I think that determinants influence us and there is no contra-causal free will. Now how does that relate to Sartre’s we are condemned to be free? =D> 